What Makes a Christian Life Alive? On Call and Creation in N.F.S. Grundtvig and Jean‐Louis Chrétien

Artykuł zwraca uwagę na motywy i dzieje włączenia wyznania wiary do liturgii Kościoła. Celem pracy jest pokazanie ścisłej zależności zachodzącej między liturgią i życiem chrześcijańskim. Zarówno liturgia, jak i życie chrześcijańskie są oparte na wyznaniu wiary, dlatego też zauważenie tego związku może mieć duże znaczenie dla pogłębienia ścisłego związku życia chrześcijańskiego z liturgią, która nie jest czymś jakby z zewnątrz dodanym do życia chrześcijańskiego, ale określa jego wewnętrzną treść i stanowi w pewnym sensie środowisko naturalne jego autentycznego rozwoju. Wyznanie wiary stanowi pierwszą szkołę wiary i pozostaje podstawowym narzędziem formacyjnym. Ten fakt domaga się więc, aby wyznanie wiary było realnie zgłębianym i trwałym elementem przepowiadania chrześcijańskiego oraz punktem odniesienia dla kształtowania autentycznego ducha chrześcijańskiego.

Henning Høirup: Grundtvig’s Views on Faith and Knowledge. The Principle of Contradiction as a Theological Axiom in Grundtvig's Writings. Review by C. I. Scharling. Dr. Høirup’s thesis is a contribution of the utmost significance to recent Grundtvigian research, and it is an honour for the Grundtvig Society to present this monumental work as the first of its published books. To a greater extent than any of his predecessors the author has made use of the great mass of unpublished material in the Grundtvig Archives in the Royal Library at Copenhagen. The copious extracts which Dr. Høirup gives from Grundtvig’s “ Brevveksling” (cp. Grundtvig-Studier, 1948, P. 103) show most convincingly how important it is that all the manuscripts left by Grundtvig should be published. But, above all, the value of the book lies in its success in bringing to light a completely new and unquestionably correct point of view from which to study the whole field of Grundtvig’s thought. Earlier research students have concentrated on investigating the individual presuppositions of Grundtvig’s philosophy (influences from particular philosophers such as Fichte and Schelling); Høirup considers it important to investigate also his general presuppositions, the structural contribution of the general contemporary philosophical mode of thought which he met with, for instance, in the propaedeutic instruction given at the university. Here Prof. Riisbrigh, who was a pupil of Christian Wolff, lectured on dogmatic realism, i. e., the theory that existence as it is in itself agrees with the laws of our thought. Thus the real fundamental law, not only for all thought, but also for existence, is the principle of contradiction (“ principium contradictions” ), the great “ Either—Or” , in accordance with which nothing which contradicts itself can be true, while what one cannot deny without contradicting oneself must be true. In 1813, during Grundtvig’s controversy with Schelling, H. C. Ørsted and C. Molbech, he “discovers” the principle of contradiction and uses it as a weapon against pantheism; this principle is “ the stone which shall crush the troll” (i.e., Schelling), since it proves the impossible character of Schelling’s philosophy, which attempted to abolish the opposition between evil and good and to claim that life’s great antitheses are only apparent, not real. Against Schelling’s religious monism Grundtvig sets Christian dualism, and his weapon is the principle of contradiction, “ truth’s fundamental law”. With the help of this axiom which, applied to the basis of the historical Revelation, must be the guiding light in all Christian knowledge, Grundtvig also carried on his Church controversy (beginning with “The Church’s Reply” in 1825) against the rationalist Professor of Theology, H. N. Clausen. It is self-contradictory for Clausen to want to be regarded as a “Protestant” while at the same time he rejects the Lutheran conception of Christianity; he holds fast to the Lutheran “ Scripture principle” (“ skriftprincip” ) while simultaneously he rejects what is acknowledged to be the Christianity of the Apostles. In opposition to this Grundtvig maintains that the proof of what is true Christianity is not primarily to be found in the Scriptures (and certainly not when they are read in isolation from the faith of the Church), but in the Church itself, in its confession of faith repeated aloud at baptism and Holy Communion, both of which are older than the Scriptures. Dr. Høirup shows in an interesting manner that Grundtvig builds up his “ view of the Church” with the help of the principle of contradiction, and how later, also with the help of this principle, he forms his peculiar theory that the Apostles’ Creed is “ the word from the Lord’s own mouth”, spoken by the risen Lord Himself to the disciples during the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. While Grundtvig originally regarded the confession of faith at baptism as the witness of the Church (both the Church of the present day and the Church of the Apostles) as to what is true Christianity, he later emphasizes that the confession (i. e., the Creed) is the voice of the Church and of the Spirit blent into one; from claiming that the baptismal procedure is the Lord's own voice which creates life he goes farther and teaches that the Apostles’ Creed is historically the word of the Lord. From the principle of contradiction Grundtvig argues that there must be a common word of truth which makes the true Christian community recognisable for all; this word must be a spoken, not a written word; and it must be the confession of faith which is spoken at reception into the Church — that is, at baptism. Baptism and its conditions must have been ordained by Jesus Himself. All this series of conclusions must be true, because the opposed suppositions represent an impossibility. The theory of knowledge as a rule faithfully applied by Grundtvig to the historical Revelation and to the proceedings which are the foundation of the Church and the means of salvation gave his theology a strong evangelical basis, but also somewhat unbalanced it; it caused him to let dogma get the better of history in his dogmatic teaching about the Apostles’ Creed as the “ evangelium quadraginta dierum”. The fact that this theory of knowledge could have such great significance for Grundtvig was due partly to his antithetical, non-dialectical mode of thought, partly—and especially—to his whole philosophy of life, which is based on a conviction of the dualism of existence, the irreconcilable opposition between truth and untruth, life and death. We are all engaged in the irreconcilable conflict that exists between the God of truth and the father of lies: “We must deny one of the two, God or Satan.” Therefore Grundtvig finds the central point of the Christian life precisely in the combination of renunciation and confession of faith at baptism. Through this knitting together of renunciation and faith baptism becomes “ the living expression” of the principle of contradiction. Dr. Høirup’s treatise also provides a thorough discussion of Grundtvig’s whole conception of the relation between faith and knowledge, his “ Christian logic”, i. e. theory of knowledge. In spite of all the influence which Wolff’s methods of proof had upon him, Grundtvig decidedly dissociates himself from the rationalist theory of knowledge because it isolates knowledge both from faith and from the other psychological faculties: feeling and imagination. Grundtvig constantly maintains that philosophy by itself cannot construct a system of metaphysics, and that certainty of faith cannot be attained by logic. “ When human reason regards itself as pure reason and truth itself and seeks to develop the truth out of itself, it is the servant of falsehood,” he thunders against Schelling. But he is willing to recognise to the full the importance of reason when it is obedient to faith in the [divine] revelation. On the other hand, knowledge becomes barren if it is not combined with feeling and images (the faculty of imagination) ; this leads to a warm defence of the rights of the knowledge conveyed through poetic imagery and therewith of the symbolic language of the Bible (see P. 104 and 216 f. of Høirup’s book). According to Grundtvig, true Christian knowledge is bound up with experience, history and revelation. Dr. Høirup fully and fruitfully discusses Grundtvig’s contribution as a theological thinker in these spheres. One of the most outstanding sections of the treatise is the detailed examination of Grundtvig’s relation to Locke (P. 137 ff.), where he shows that English philosophy with its emphasis on empiricism taught Grundtvig that experience is “ the source of all knowledge”. But experience for Grundtvig means above all the experience of the human race — that is, history. The determination of what is true Christianity must be reached by the way of history. Christian knowledge is decisively bound up with revelation; in contrast to the “ riddling speech” of the myths, the historical Christian revelation is made known in the Word which must be accepted as it is spoken. Grundtvig’s conception of revelation is not a static intellectual one, but dynamic; God reveals Himself in history, as acting to achieve our salvation, and God reveals Himself continually by the activity of the Son and the Holy Spirit; therefore the evidence of God’s revelation must be sought first of all in the living Church, whose Creed and sacraments are the norm for the correct interpretation of the Bible. The central significance of Dr. Høirup’s book lies in its historical research. Opinions will always be divided as to the systematic justification of Grundtvig’s view; Dr. Høirup agrees in the main with Grundtvig’s view of the Church & the sacraments, but clearly dissociates himself from the “ divagation” in his special doctrine about the Creed. It is Dr. Høirup’s great merit that by his thorough research he has shed new and valuable light on Grundtvig’s views concerning philosophy and the Church, and has thereby shown that there are always fruitful fields of investigation open to students of Grundtvig.

The Torah as the key to the understanding of the relationship between God and man: A covenantal-Christological perspective. This article indicates that the understanding and handling of the law of Moses, as found in the federal theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith, can easily lead to the relationship between God and man being understood as a legal relationship in which the covenant acquires the character of a bilateral contract. This article questions this view after looking at the nature of Moses’ law as Torah. Such understanding indicates the inextricable unity between law and covenant. As a next step, it is therefore indicated that Jesus Christ fulfils this Torah to such an extent that it can be said that he himself takes on the function of the Torah in the life of the Christian. Indeed, Jesus is the Torah under the new covenant. In conclusion, the implications for the life of the New Testament Christian are briefly touched upon.

What did the Barmen Declaration have to say to the churches of the German Democratic Republic?

Grundtvig and Søren KierkegaardBy Hellmut ToftdahlHellmut Toftdahl admits at the beginning of his article, the subject of which is Grundtvig seen in the light of Kierkegaard that it could look like a misrepresentation to talk about one Grundtvig, since research has divided his production into various parts on the basis of various criteria. But he maintains that it is justified by his method, which is inspired by phenomenology. This method is to uncover the ego’s meeting with the world by stating the ontological conditions according to which the ego realizes its existence.With reference to Rollo May and Heidegger he says that phenomenology considers existence thus: man has been thrown into the world without life-lines, and with the knowledge that the only sure thing is death. In this meaningless existence man must establish himself as a meaning-creating existence and all his thoughts and production must be considered results of this process. The world does not exist as an objective fact. It is eternally renewed in a double implication between subject and object. The world is always the product of the activity of the individual - and particularly when it concerns an author or a philosopher, his work can be looked upon as an expression of his attitude to existence; his work is his way of “having” the world or experiencing the world.Phenomenology applied to Grundtvig’s works does not isolate the different aspects of his activities and is not interested in what Grundtvig thought in 1810, 1825 or 1832, because it does not concern itself so much with what a person thinks, as with the pre-conscious, unreflected plane of consciousness. Phenomenology tries to view Grundtvig as impartially as possible. It does not consider him an object for psychoanalysis or systematic science, because any systematic method presupposes a preconceived attitude in the scholar which firmly confines the meeting between him and Grundtvig within certain frameworks, and we are then presented with Grundtvig the historian, the theologian or the poet, but the Grundtvig who held these opinions about existence disappears completely behind the opinions themselves. It is Grundtvig the integral man, who formulated his theology, his poetry and his historical philosophy as answers to questions he asked himself, whom phenomenology is trying to reach, by taking up as open an attitude as possible and not isolating certain aspects of his activity. Phenomenology presupposes that behind the many ideas is an ego, which is not identical with these ideas, that the real arena for the battles of the individual is not found on the conscious plane, where the ideas are produced, but on the pre-conscious plane where the individual constitutes himself as an individual, with absurdity as a constant threat to his productiveness.The contrast between life and death is a common feature of Grundtvig’s philosophy. Life is very extensive in its various meanings. Like most of Grundtvig’s concepts, it is loaded with connotations. Not only does it signify biological life in contrast to biological death, but it also describes man as a fulfilled member of the fellowship of men. Life, light, joy and fulfilment are closely connected associations, all in contrast to death. Death, loneliness, darkness, powerlessness, despair and emptiness belong together. Death is apparent in all human cohabitation, being the destructive forces which result in the isolation of man from God and his neighbour. Today psychologists call it depression, modern philosophers alienation.To Grundtvig life is a battlefield where irreconcilable opponents, concretized in the image of God and the Devil, fight for supremacy. This dualism pervades the whole of Grundtvig’s philosophy, affecting his theology as well as his ethics; the concept of truth and falsehood is also included in the fundamental contrasts.Truth and falsehood are not primarily questions of right or wrong, but of to be or not to be. To be or to exist in truth simply means to exist as a whole human being. To exist in falsehood means to exist on untenable assumptions. Such a dualistic picture of the universe presupposes that some contrasts are absolute and irreconcilable - that there are contrasts that can be decided on with a clear yes or no.Within the Church the same principle is expressed in the renunciation and the confession of faith, through which the Christian renounces evil and accepts goodness. The principle of contradiction became, together with the “unique discovery” of the confession of faith and personal experience of sin, proof of the fundamental contrast between truth and falsehood. On the intellectual plane, this “ fundamental law of thought” means that man’s thoughts are tied and his spiritual thoughts would disintegrate if this law were not respected. One can say that Grundtvig sets a limit to free thinking by this very thought; he recognizes that there are thoughts which endanger the survival of the individual, and it is his conviction that the individual is able to keep the negative thoughts away by deliberately suppressing them. This conviction came to form the psychological basis of his Christianity, which combines human existence with a spark of divine truth.A typical Grundtvig quotation from a theological magazine (1825) illustrates this:“ I believe in a God who is living truth personified, for it is true that he will do everything possible in order to lead man to recognition of truth; and by creating the world he has at least undeniably proved that he can do more than we understand” .Grundtvig’s belief in God is thus closely connected with his need for different existential values. God guarantees the contrasts which are necessary in order that man can fulfill himself by choosing goodness. Through his conscience man has contact with God, and it is up to the individual whether or not he believes in the testimony of his conscience when he has to make a choice. Grundtvig thus makes the choice more or less voluntary, but it cannot be difficult for the individual to make a decision, when the opposite of conscience is stamped as lies and falsehood. By making conscience the evidence of truth, he has created a psychological basis for belief which cannot stand up to a dialectical analysis.Grundtvig’s faith has the character of a psychosomatic-conditioned means of escape from the responsibility of decision during what Kierkegaard would call: The Hazard of the Spirit. Grundtvig does not recognize that suspension of conscience which Kierkegaard in “Frygt og Bæven” has shown to be necessary for the thinking human being in exceptional cases. In his conception of conscience Grundtvig is an ethicist in Kierkegaard’s terminology. To Grundtvig man is not independent. On the contrary, selfwilledness will kill conscience together with everything else pertaining to the senses, leaving only a powerless shadow, what the German philosophers have called “practical sense” , said Grundtvig in 1825.Hellmut Toftdahl now looks at man’s role in the Church; the duty of the individual parishioner is reduced to going to church and being accepted in the congregation, in order to hear God’s word or what the minister postulates is really God’s word. The Gospel can have a life-giving effect, if the minister is in possession of the living word, which is the gift of the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, a congregation can also be at the mercy of a minister’s oratorical powers, which emerges clearly from the terms Grundtvig uses to describe the process to which man is subjected, when he accepts the word; terms such as “penetrate” , “merge” , “ kindle” . Submission to another person’s oratorical talents will be reassuring to those who need redemption of their ego. In the enchantment of the great visions, the existential problems are momentarily forgotten, but an independently thinking individual must be sceptical of the living word and react against its peculiar characteristic: the momentary enchantment. To sceptics the living word is a form of demagogy.Here Hellmut Toftdahl turns to Kierkegaard’s criticism of the living word and the mentality which this presupposes. Kierkegaard and Grundtvig knew each other personally. When Kierkegaard’s father was still alive, Grundtvig visited his home fairly frequently, and Kierkegaard’s brother became a faithful follower of Grundtvig. Their comments on each other were far from being unbiassed, and in his diaries Kierkegaard could be frankly impertinent. This of course was due to the fact that they only knew each other superficially, but at the same time it suggests that they were not altogether unaware of each other.Even before he had started writing seriously, Kierkegaard mentions Grundtvig if not with admiration then with a certain appreciation of him as a person. To a fellow student Kierkegaard freely admitted that Grundtvig was “a genius, yes, a genius, for a genius is somebody who discovers something, and that Grundtvig has certainly done.” Kierkegaard could admire the lonely young Grundtvig, fighting with belief and disbelief, but when he put forward his visions as great discoveries, Kierkegaard dismissed him as a “twaddler.” “At one time, says Kierkegaard, one could have this impression of Grundtvig: he looks as if he could become someone who truthfully aims at ONE goal. But since then he has become depraved by the evils of our time, which can be designated by the expression “both-and”, both one thing and another. To have a manse and a few thousand Rigsdaler - and then at the same time be a kind of apostle, that is a contradiction.” Kierkegaard was full of indignation because Grundtvig managed to combine idealistic work and a living.According to Kierkegaard, Grundtvig began already at the end of the 1830’s to move away from that form of sermon which bore witness to strong and healthy preaching. After what may have been his first visit to Vartov Church, Kierkegaard was anything but edified by Grundtvig’s preaching: “All

Introduction. The article examines the representation of anti-iconoclastic resistance in the Lives of St. Ioannikios the Great and St. Peter of Atroa and its relation to the debate between the Bithynian monks and the Studites on the issue of Christian life and opposition to heresy. Methods. The methods employed in this article are source research, information analysis, comparative historical research. The sources on the subject include two Lives of St. Ioannikios, two versions of the Life of St. Peter of Atroa, the Live and Works of St. Theodore the Studite, and the Life of St. Eustratios of Agauron. Analysis. During the second iconoclastic period divergent views on Christian life emerged among the Orthodox opposition, namely the Bithynian monks and the Studites. Iconophiles such as Theodore the Studite believed that during periods of prevalence of heresy it was the duty of every Orthodox believer to openly resist it and endure persecutions; no one should stay silent out of fear or enter into agreements with heretics, even out of a desire to preserve monasteries and churches. Many Bithynian monks, however, chose to live quietly in remote monasteries and hermitages avoiding open conflicts with Iconoclasts. For instance, Ioannikios the Great, an influential Bithynian hermit, did not suffer any persecution for the icons, maintained contacts with Iconoclasts and was indulgent towards priest Joseph, who split Orthodox opposition during the persecutions of 815–820. Furthermore, Eustratios of Agauron, Ioannikios’ confidante, would have been stained with the statement given to Iconoclasts, and hermit Theoktistos, an acquaintance of Ioannikios, was accused of heresies and caused embarrassment among believers. All these things aroused doubts among Iconophiles concerning Ioannikios’ Orthodoxy. Theodore the Studite criticized Ioannikios and others like him for avoiding persecution and blamed Eustratios and Theoktistos; this position caused antipathy to the Bithynian monks, including Peter, the author of the first Life of Ioannikios. Hagiographers glorified Ioannikios first of all as a great ascetic, prophet and miracle-worker, but they also tried to describe him as an active participant in the resistance to heresy and to remove all possible doubts about his faith; they told about his antiiconoclastic prophecies and denunciations of heretics, attributed a lengthy confession of faith to him, and depicted him as an adviser to Patriarch-Confessor Methodios. Monk Sabas, the author of the second Life of Ioannikios, removed Peters attacks on the Studites from the narrative. He also wrote two Lives of Peter of Atroa which presented a more nuanced model of Orthodox behaviour. He depicted the saint as a great ascetic and miracle-worker who, like Ioannikios, stayed away from active resistance to heresy, but did on one occasion confront the Iconoclasts directly and suffered beating; moreover, Peter’s miraculous healings were only effective for the Iconophiles, and, like Theodore the Studite, he urged his monks not to communicate with heretics at all. Peter of Atroa had friendly relations with Theodore, consulted with him and called for the Studite’s help when he had been slandered; at the same time Peter is depicted as a close and undisputed friend of Ioannikios. Results. The analysis of sources shows that monk Peter, the first biographer of Ioannikios, sought to present his life as an alternative model of Orthodox behaviour during persecutions, a model that is equal to the open confession of the Studites and their followers who had been flogged for worshipping the icons. In contrast, hagiographer Sabas tried to reconcile the positions of Bithynian monks and the Studites, making Peter of Atroa an intermediary figure standing between the two groups.

The article presents the sacrament of the Eucharist in the perspective of Sunday, because this sacrament is the source of the whole Christian life, and the Church lives thanks to the Eucharist (Ecclesia de Eucharistia vivit). It presents an overview of the major changes in the liturgy and the theology of the Holy Mass on Sunday, as well as the value of Sunday for the People of God. The liturgy, especially the Sunday liturgy, is not a theological treatise or a scientific lecture, but a celebration of the mystery of Christ, that is, the action of God himself together with the gathered People of God. It is an authentic confession of faith and a sign of belonging to the Church of God and union with him. The faithful, when they do not understand the spirit and meaning of the rites, withdraw, sometimes looking for other forms of religiosity. Therefore, there is a need to encourage, educate and prepare them for a fuller participation in the Sunday liturgy, which is, after all, of fundamental importance for the life of the Church and its individual members. It is the liturgy that effectively creates communion and educates to communion. The liturgy, especially the Sunday liturgy, lived in the full communion of the Church, reveals the entire mystery of Christ, from the Incarnation and Nativity to the Ascension and Pentecost, and the expectation of the blessed hope and coming of Christ. It is the realization of God’s plan of salvation and the continuation of the history of salvation to which all are called.

In the late 5th century, disciplinary practices of the Assyrian Church of the East saw an unprecedented change in the scope of marriages of priests and those serving the God. Synods in Saliq in 486 and 497 agreed not only to consecrate married men but also to allow already consecrated priests and bishops to get mar­ried. The synods lifted restrictions on successive bigamy (marriages of widows and widowers) as well. Abstinence as such was limited and priests were allowed to maintain contacts with their wives and have children. This was the key issue for bishops participating in the debate although history remembered the assem­blies as proclaiming the Nestorian confession of faith. The matter of adaptation to standards of the Persian society was very pressing, with both resolutions and the course of the debate showing clear intervention of Persian sovereigns. Adopted arrangements remained binding to a greater or lesser extent for over half a century and although they did not introduce any permanent change in the Church disci­pline, they represent an interesting example of an attempt to adjust the canon law to the social context of the life of Christians in the Persian Empire.

Biblical counseling resources lack structural coherence with the doctrine and Christian life model of the Westminster Standards. This article proposes reorienting counselor-trainers and counselors with these perspectives as a contribution to David Powlison’s vision to formulate a unified theory of systematic theology for soul care. The twofold structure of the Larger Catechism, called the symphonic-pedogogical perspective —building up the saints to know our Triune God and his work—is paired with teaching disciples to do everything that Jesus commanded. We observe five substructural patterns to integrate its instructional method. This essay explains the significance of each perspective for counseling cases. KEYWORDS: Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism, Grand Unified Theory, perspectivalism, descriptive and prescriptive presuppositions, God’s attributes, lex Christi, man’s derivative reflections

The confession of faith in the lordship of Jesus Christ may be considered the originary practice of the Christian life. As such it recommends itself as a primary site at which to investigate the relation between the agency of the Holy Spirit and human activity. Focusing on 1Cor. 12:1–3, which identifies the act of the Spirit as the sine qua non of Christian confession, we examine its importance within the theological setting of Paul’s apocalyptic gospel in order to illumine classical Reformed debates about the nature of faith and ‘effectual calling’ in relation to the act of publicly confessing faith in Christ. Recognition of the Spirit as the present power of God’s eschatological reign, militant to shape reality, to win and secure faith, and to move women and men to a free creaturely acknowledgment of the same, proves essential to understanding the act of confessing the faith.

The nature of law in the Pentateuch: A critical-canonical perspective with New Testament implicationIn this study, the question is asked whether the nature of law in the Pentateuch corresponds with the view of the nature of the law as expressed by the Westminster Confession of Faith. The article also explores whether Calvin’s view of the law, as sometimes emerged in his discussion of the guideline for the Christian’s life of gratitude, may not be more in line with it, especially when he sees Christ and the law as interchangeable when it comes to a guideline for Christian life. In the search for an answer to this question, the article looks at researchers’ critical investigation into the authority that legal material in the Pentateuch actually had in the practice of Israel and Judah, in conjunction with a canonical investigation into the nature of the legal material in the Pentateuch. After indication of an implication of this findings for the New Testament Christian, the article comes to the conclusion that Calvin was indeed at times closer to the nature of law in the Pentateuch than the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Introduction A spirit of hope and renewal characterizes recent Catholic theology, reawakened and energized by the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council and the new leadership of Pope Francis. After the council, national Catholic conferences convened extend the renewal movement, though some of these movements attracted little attention beyond their country of origin. One of the forgotten treasures of the post-Vatican II Church is a document focused on hope and renewal, Our Hope: A Confession of Faith for This Time (Unsere Hoffnung: Ein Bekenntnis zum Glauben in dieser Zeit). Promulgated in November, 1975, by the Joint Synod of the Dioceses in the Federal Republic of Germany and drafted by fundamental theologian Johann Baptist Metz, Our Hope is the first official document from the Catholic Church in Germany address the history of Nazi Germany and the Shoah. (1) In the post -Shoah context of the document, Our Hope asks whether the heart of the Church's teaching--the focus on Christ's suffering and the cross--has also taught indifference the suffering of others, especially the Jewish people. (2) But, as the Vatican started slowing down or resisting the reform movements soon after the close of the council, Our Hope and Metz were seen as moving the Church and theology in the wrong direction. Under the leadership of Pope Francis, such resistance seems be lifting, and renewal is beginning again. Working in a spirit of hope in God, the synod engaged serious self-examination, critique, repentance, and change. These first steps by the West German Church produced some genuine theological recentering in light of the Shoah. In this new time of renewal, and in view of the fortieth anniversary of Our Hope, I argue that these theological revisions should not be resisted or neglected as harmful the Church; rather, they should be reintroduced the living witness of the Church and experienced now--as they were then--as bearers of new hope and new meaning in the life of the Church. Vatican II met barely two decades after the end of World War II. world was still reeling from the suffering and death of the war, just beginning confront the extent of the atrocities committed against the Jewish people in the Shoah, and just starting worry about the conflict growing in Vietnam. Confronting this context, in Gaudium et Spes (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) the Church identified itself as a community so deeply connected humankind and human history that participating in the modern world embodies--not endangers--the meaning of Christian life. Church's solidarity with the world calls it take up The and hopes, the grief and of the people of our time, especially those who are poor or afflicted (no.1), in order to save and not judge, serve and not be served (no. 3). (3) For the Catholic Church in West Germany, responding the call of Gaudium et Spes meant confronting the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the modern world from within the country where National Socialism took root and where the war and its atrocities began. Our Hope is still remembered by the Catholic Church in Germany. When the German bishops spoke out again about the Shoah on the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camps in Opportunity Re-examine Relationships with the Jews (1995), they quoted extensively from the central witness and self-critique of the Church in Our Hope (4)--but the work of the Church remember and reflect theologically on the Shoah still has a long way go. passing years should be used increase prayerful reflection on this history, not forget it. Metz and the synod argued that we become more human by remembering (and more inhuman by forgetting) the suffering and death of others. (5) Our Hope certainly had a central and enduring effect on the development of Metz's theology. …